Non-invasive genetic sampling is one of our most powerful and ethical tools for threatened species population monitoring: a reply to Lavery et al.

Noninvasive genetic sampling (genetic tagging) of individuals is one of the most powerful and ethical tools for threatened species population monitoring. A recent review of the threats to Australia’s rock-wallabies ( Petrogale spp.) and the methods for their monitoring stated that noninvasive genetic sampling (faecal DNA analysis) is not viable for estimating population size and trends for species in this genus. We feel that it is important to respond as such statements have the potential to stifle the development and application of an important tool for threatened species monitoring and lead to lost opportunities for collection of high-quality data to inform conservation of these species. We take the opportunity to describe the breadth of successful application of noninvasive genetic sampling for monitoring rock wallabies and other mammal taxa, the research and development requirements for successful implementation of noninvasive DNA-based population monitoring and thoughts on why this powerful approach has not been implemented to its full potential in many jurisdictions. We need to be careful not to dismiss one of the most powerful and ethical threatened species monitoring tools due to lack of familiarity with the requirements for its implementation.

• Publication year

  2022

• Venue

  Biodiversity and Conservation

• Publication date

  2022-02-01

• Fields of study

  Not labeled

• Identifiers
  DOI 10.1007/s10531-022-02377-x
• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• Global Commitments to Conserving and Monitoring Genetic Diversity Are Now Necessary and Feasible

  2021cited by this paper
• Threats to Australia’s rock-wallabies (Petrogale spp.) with key directions for effective monitoring

  2021cited by this paper
• Spatial proximity moderates genotype uncertainty in genetic tagging studies

  2020cited by this paper
• Applying genomic data in wildlife monitoring: Development guidelines for genotyping degraded samples with reduced single nucleotide polymorphism panels

  2020cited by this paper
• Monitoring the Abundance of Wild and Reintroduced Bilby Populations

  2020cited by this paper
• Development and optimisation of molecular assays for microsatellite genotyping and molecular sexing of non-invasive samples of the ghost bat, Macroderma gigas

  2020cited by this paper
• Complete tag loss in capture–recapture studies affects abundance estimates: An elephant seal case study

  2020cited by this paper
• Genetic tagging in the Anthropocene: scaling ecology from alleles to ecosystems.

  2019cited by this paper
• Genetic and genomic monitoring with minimally invasive sampling methods

  2018cited by this paper
• Fresh is best: Accurate SNP genotyping from koala scats

  2018cited by this paper
• Assessing SNP genotyping of noninvasively collected wildlife samples using microfluidic arrays

  2017cited by this paper
• Guidelines for MSAT and SNP panels that lead to high-quality data for genetic mark–recapture studies

  2014cited by this paper
• Reliable genotyping of the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) using DNA isolated from a single faecal pellet

  2013cited by this paper
• How to overcome genotyping errors in non‐invasive genetic mark‐recapture population size estimation—A review of available methods illustrated by a case study

  2013cited by this paper
• Habitat connectivity, more than species’ biology, influences genetic differentiation in a habitat specialist, the short-eared rock-wallaby (Petrogale brachyotis)

  2012cited by this paper
• COLONY: a program for parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data

  2010cited by this paper
• Highly reliable genetic identification of individual northern hairy‐nosed wombats from single remotely collected hairs: a feasible censusing method

  2000cited by this paper
• Bias and Loss of Precision Due to Tag Loss in Jolly–Seber Estimates for Mark–Recapture Experiments

  1981cited by this paper

• Broad‐scale assessment of camera traps and acoustic detectors as survey techniques for flying squirrels

  2025cites this paper
• Filter transfer learning algorithm for nonlinear systems modeling with heterogeneous features

  2025cites this paper
• Nurturing environmental awareness: how high school students in Johannesburg are shaping a greener future

  2025cites this paper
• Balancing ethics and conservation: Assessing short‐term behavioral impacts of biopsy sampling in a recovering whale population

  2025cites this paper
• Profiling the diversity of the village chicken faecal microbiota using 16S rRNA gene and metagenomic sequencing data to reveal patterns of gut microbiome signatures

  2025cites this paper
• Perspektivy ispol'zovaniia neinvazivnykh metodov polucheniia geneticheskogo materiala dlia molekuliarnykh issledovanii bioraznoobraziia zhivotnykh

  2024cites this paper
• Genetic variation of the native Rusa deer (Rusa timorensis) in Java and Bali (Indonesia) as revealed using non-invasive sampling

  2024cites this paper
• A method for noninvasive individual genotyping of black‐footed cat (Felis nigripes)

  2024cites this paper
• An experimental design for obtaining DNA of a target species and its diet from a single non‐invasive genetic protocol

  2023cites this paper
• A Hierarchical Filter Transfer Learning Algorithm for Heterogeneous Domains

  2023cites this paper
• A Comparison of Non-Destructive Visceral Swab and Tissue Biopsy Sampling Methods for Genotyping-by-Sequencing in the Freshwater Mussel Fusconaia askewi

  2023cites this paper
• Scat DNA as a non-invasive method for estimating the abundance of the vulnerable mala (Lagorchestes hirsutus)

  2023cites this paper
• The Road ahead on Implementing Non-Invasive Genetic Monitoring of Multispecies in the Carpathians

  2022cites this paper